Lecture 2

This is what you will learn during this class:

Learning Objectives 

1. Understand and apply the principles of polarity management to distinguish between basic and applied research.

2. Apply polarity management principles to differentiate outcome-based from process-based research frameworks.

3. Develop and apply critical thinking and argumentation skills through structured debate on research approaches.

4. Enhance collaboration and peer-to-peer learning by working in small groups on a research scenario.

5. Reflect on personal research approaches and potential biases through a written reflection.

6. Integrate feedback to improve discussion and presentation skills in subsequent class activities.

Additional references that came up: 

Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812. PMID: 22310560; PMCID: PMC3731143.

My interpretation of this:

Curran's work on hybrid designs is all about finding better ways to test new health interventions by combining two important goals: proving if the intervention works (effectiveness) and understanding how it can be used in the real world (implementation). Instead of testing these two things separately, he proposes doing both at the same time.

To make this easier to understand:

• Type 1 hybrid designs mostly look at how well the intervention works but also keep an eye on how it’s being used in real settings.

• Type 2 hybrid designs test both the intervention and how to best introduce it in real-life situations.

• Type 3 designs focus more on how to get the intervention used by practitioners (doctors, nurses, coaches, decision makers), while also checking how it helps end point users (eg patients).

This approach fits well with frameworks like the Medical Research Council’s (MRC), which we discussed in the class. The MRC suggests breaking down research into steps: first, figuring out what the problem is and developing a solution, then testing it in small groups, and finally seeing how well it works and how it can be used in practice. Hybrid designs help speed up this process because they let researchers test and improve both the intervention and how it’s applied at the same time. This means interventions can reach end point users faster and in more effective ways​.

In simpler terms, Curran et al.'s hybrid models help researchers quickly figure out not just if a new solution works, but also how to get it used effectively within the healthcare/sport systems.

Breakdown:

Step 1:  Recap (30 minutes)

Objective: Share your initial thoughts on your chosen stance and how the class discussions influenced your perspective.

Activity: format:  "two-minute-wonder" where you will have 1-slide and 2 minutes (timed) to pitch your ideas to the class).

Step 2: Lecture: Research Process-Oriented Frameworks (50 minutes)

Objectives:

• Introduce the concepts of methods, methodology, and research process frameworks.

• Use analogies and class discussions to explain the relationship between methods, methodology, and research process frameworks.

• Provide a high-level overview of three research process-oriented frameworks, highlighting their commonalities.

• Introduce the Medical Research Council framework and its phases (Development, Feasibility, Evaluation, Implementation, and Process Evaluation).

Step 3: Break (10 minutes)

Step 4: In Class Group Discussions (60 minutes)

Case Study parts 1, 2 and 3

• Present the case study on heart rate variability and stress in athletes.

• Explain the elements of methods, methodology, and research process frameworks in the context of the case study.

• In 2 groups, tackle the two case studies. Make notes and present them to the class for feedback.

Additional Readings

1. Methods and Methodology

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

2. Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework

Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 337, a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655

Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., ... & Baird, J. (2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 350, h1258. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258

3. Design-Based Research (DBR)

Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813

4. T0-T4 Translational Research Framework

Khoury, M. J., Gwinn, M., Yoon, P. W., Dowling, N., Moore, C. A., & Bradley, L. (2007). The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: How can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genomics, 89(3), 318-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2006.11.009

Rubio, D. M., Schoenbaum, E. E., Lee, L. S., Schteingart, D. E., Marantz, P. R., Anderson, K. E., ... & Esposito, K. (2010). Defining translational research: Implications for training. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 470-475. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccd618

5. Research Process Frameworks

Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.). Wiley.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson.